Time: More Bad News for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter?

Back in March, we broke the news that the Pentagon’s oversight office was taking a gander at the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, estimated to cost potentially $1.5 trillion to develop, buy and operate over several decades (the Pentagon is so desperate to bring down the estimated cost to operate the plane they’re even hiring contractors to work on that!). The plane is the future of Air Force, Marine and Navy aviation, who plan to buy close to 2,500 of them: it’s the lone fighter in the pipeline.

The auditors’ report — on F-35 quality assurance management (essentially how they identify and prevent problems) – isn’t out yet, but some of their findings were contained in a one-paragraph summary in a report to Congress that came out this week. Turns out it wasn’t all rosy:

In February 2012, DoD IG initiated the F-35 AS9100 Quality Management System assessment to review conformity to specified quality management system(s), contractual quality clauses, and internal quality processes and procedures for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. As of September 2012, more than 190 findings were identified and four notices of concern sent to the F-35 Program Office. All findings were accepted and will be addressed and implemented to the maximum practicable extent.

While it’s not good news that problems were found, we don’t know how serious they are. Whatever the case, it’s good that the Defense Department inspector general is taking a look at this mammoth and important program.

Australia starts showing signs of nervousness concerning the way the F35 is evolving it seems
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

The Canadian government just cancelled the F-35 purchase...

According to the latest numbers just released by a private accounting firm the cost for the F-35 went from the promised $9B to a whopping over $45B price tag!

The government is now launching a new more open and honedt bid for our old F-18 fighters.

Some links

| The Australian

Canada to consider other planes besides F-35 : Stltoday

Fighter jet plan 'reset' as F-35 costs soar - Canada - CBC News

Do you have a link for that? I couldn't find any articles stating a plan to cancel the program, only that they're reviewing it...

Is all this speculation a case of 'might be', 'maybe' or 'possibly'?

What does it really matter if the VTOL system is 'susceptible' to battle damage any aircraft that takes hits in those areas will be in a lot of trouble and how do we define susceptible I can't imagine an F18 being hit amid ships is very pretty either. If the aircraft is badly damaged enough that it can't land vertically and is still flyable then it would be diverted to somewhere where a conventional landing is possible. Or the pilot would have to ditch the aircraft same as any other aircraft.

The greatest chance of loss would be in the landing and take off phase which is where a lot of the harrier accidents and loses seem to have occured with the caveat that the F35B is under computer control on a vertical landing not the manual control method of the harrier with it's wide margin for human error, reaction time, spatial awareness and ability to multi task 100% every time.

As far has hacking the ALIS network goes the obvious thing to reduce the ease of access would be to use a customised encrypted messaging protocol with rotating keys. Then maybe use radio datalinks for nodes that are completely seperate from the web and then utilising military satellite bandwidth to get data to the regional maintenance facilities and then on to the 'mothership'. Ultimately it seems to me that if you limit access to the system through using a seperate network to ao any other traffic and/or make that access reliant on a physical connection on say a military base with lots of big hefty men with guns and systems to purge machines when being over run then you'd get a long way to lessening your problem.

I'm not being funny but any large complex distributed software engineering project has these exact same issues with VV&T from the signalling system of a rail network to the ground control station of a satellite and everything in between. Thats why these things take years and years and years and why the software drops are so slow. But that's why the discipline is called software engineering and not 'programming'. Do you try to mitigate your risk and progress or never attempt anything 'complex' and stagnate?

My understanding in simplistic terms is that the Canadians did hold an open competition so other political parties and so on want a 'do over'.

Personally I think the result will be if they do bin the purchase and have a 'proper' competition that Canada won't be getting any fighter jets for a long time. Because the Canadian military will tip up with a myriad list of requirements that the aircraft will have to fulfil to even get down selected thus lots of manufacturers will have to present what ever aircraft they have now with the bid team having to work really hard to prove that the 'roadmap' will result in aircraft that meets the militarys spec.

Then the buy will be so small relatively speaking for what has become a custom aircraft as they have to replace lots of now obsolecent parts with the additional testing and integration thats comes with that. then the capability will have to be salami sliced to produce an aircraft that's still years late and less than promised.

In other words repeating exactly whats happened with the F35 but with less planes, manufacturing scale, yet more wasted money and delay all while the exsiting aircraft start to crap out effecting your military capability (all of which applies to the F35, but all you really end up doing is extending the problem).

Then of course your support and sparing policy becomes a huge issue as the total fleet is pretty small parts and support is expensive so you start to canabalise your existing stock of aircraft. It's like you take all the crap parts of F35 and do them again but in new crappier ways, all because some bright spark assumes that because the unit cost of an older fighter thats been bought in the thousands will marry up to the cost of an aircraft that ends up being a custom job in a much smaller buy.

Or standard military procurement of a fast jet:O

The 'can we have our ball back' scenario could be quite interesting in some areas of potential conflict.

At least a jet that isn't mandated to land vertically on a carrier has an extra choice as to where it might land - somewhere with repair and maintenance facilities, rather than ditch or divert.

I think that is even giving it too much credence, I seem to recall that the f(x)-35 has already beaten Boeing 5th gen in a comp. Best of luck if they want to switch their offereing to the fa-18ef 4th gen.

As well as diverting, the f-35b with a damaged nozzle can also be caught with the net [I assume the uk carrier will have a net catch system]

As for Australia, as per our current review, it has more SH as a plan B if the f-35 is futher delayed giving a capability gap, it's a non-story going by what both the ADF and gov are saying.
Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Materiel – Joint Media Release – Australia’s future Air Capability

Just to update on what I had said in the previous post about the F-35 being cancelled which was what I had seen/heard on TV in a news flash while waiting in a medical clinic was that effectively they are basically cancelling this purchase and restarting the whole process over in an "open bid" so that other manufacturers can apply into the competition to furnish our next fighter.

So it might well be that in the end the F-35 still comes up the winner but I can assure you this time around it won't be that simple with everyone looking into the process of the competition.

The two other front runners already being mentioned are the F-18 Super Hornet and the EuroFighter.

I'm pretty sure the barrier (net) on a carrier is connected to the arrestor gear just like the cables themselves. The net would be ripped out of it's mounts by the energy of a fast jet at a nominal landing speed and weight. The Uk carriers will have no arrestor system to hook the barrier into.

The only option if an airfield is not in range for whatever reason is a blue water divert and thus the loss of the aircraft.

On the other side of the argument if an F-35B is running to low on fuel to make it back to mother in an emergency just about any ship might do, just ask a bloke called Soapy Watson!

I was thinking more along the lines of a nylon tape, land based arresting system adapted to a net/barrier. If it was seen as a needed part of the conops and it doesn't look like it is.

Don't know why Canada bother tbh, they've got the US&A to the south and they weren't too happy about Cuba having USSR missiles on Cuban soil, but more importantly, who would want to invade a country with that many french people living there????

It's looking like anyone who buys JSF is mental, so that would probably include the MoD. :ok:

RAAF Mixed Fleet firming up?
 

Read more: RAAF Super Hornets are for long term:Smith | News.com.au

perhaps if you opened my gov link above, aussie media is just as stupid as UK and Canada

"The Australian Government has not made a decision to purchase more Super Hornets. The sending of this LOR does not commit Australia to purchase more Super Hornets. It is being sent so that the Australian Government can further consider all options in 2013 with the latest and best cost and availability information. This has been made clear to both US officials and to the Defence industry.
Following receipt of the LOR response, Government will further and fully consider Australia’s Air Combat Capability in 2013. "

That's quite funny as exactly the same was said before they purchased the first 24!! :ugh:

The point being that all F-18s which took hits to the engine nozzle feathers survived. The complex folding rear nozzle of the the F-35B was my area of concern.

The lift fan design used in the F-35B is totally different to the design of the AV-8B and not vulnerable to IR missiles, but the complex sequencing of dorsal and ventral doors will be also be susceptible to damage.

Damage or failure in either would presumably preclude a RVL as well as vertical.

jwcook, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they buy another 24, I'm sure boeing have a senior position going for a retiring polly, but it's going to mess up the plans of ADF and the SH aren't in those force development plans going forward.

Ares: F-35 Reports Released by Canadian Govt ...

The Canadian government has officially released the parameters for moving forward with an F-18 replacement and shelving its earlier evaluation that led to the selection of the Lockheed Martin F-35.

“Last April, we set out a Seven-Point Plan to hit the reset button on the process to replace the CF-18 aircraft,” the Honorable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, said in a press release. “With the release of the Terms of Reference that will guide the evaluation of alternative fighter aircraft, we are demonstrating that we are serious about looking at all available options to replace the CF-18’s.”

Here are the links to the pertinent docs:

• National Fighter Procurement Secretariat’s Seven-Point Plan: Status Report;
  
  
• Terms of Reference for the evaluation of options to sustain the fighter capability. This evaluation of options will review and assess available fighter aircraft, and each option will be evaluated against the roles and missions of the Canada First Defense Strategy;
  
  
• National Defence’s Annual Update, setting out comprehensive life-cycle cost estimates for the F-35;
  
  
• KPMG’s independent review of those costs, which establishes (1) a comprehensive life-cycle framework for reporting costs, and (2) the review of the National Defence Annual Update; and
  
  
• Industry Canada’s report on Canadian Industrial Participation in the Joint Strike Fighter Program.